Well, damn, the letters seem to form English words.
Beyond that I’m not willing to say much.
Because it’s a volatile region, where violence accompanies politics.
I re-read the OP, and it doesn’t support the idea that the thread was inspired by ralph124c being compelled to question media coverage of Palestinian statehood. Perhaps you should re-read it and see if you agree.
As to your other points, they are a continution of the hijack that tomndebb forbid continuing, so I can’t address them in this thread.
Discussions of AIPAC actions are part and parcel of this thread.
The hijack was the introduction of the idea that any lobbying group–AIPAC, NRA, ACLU, SPCA, or the local philatelist society–are a threat to democratic process. Such groups and such lobbying may be or they may not be, but that discussion deserves its own thread as it is a completely different topic than whether UN votes regarding Palestinian statehood are a good or bad thing.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, I understand your point but strongly disagree as I maintain that US Government officials who are making statements re: “whether UN votes regarding Palestinian statehood are a good or bad thing” stating that it is indeed bad (of type “the sky is falling down”) are mainly influenced by lobby group and not by it’s own careful examination as there are many indications that certain professionals in US Gov are being silenced.
However, as per instruction, it’s EOD for me.
I keep getting Hagel and Lugar confused, I can’t for the life of me figure out why.
I don’t know about some monolithic “THE” Jewish Lobby but I think there are Jewish lobbies. I think Jewish lobbies tend to also engage in pro-Israeli lobbying.
I’m not the only one that thought so. Condoleeza Rice also thought so.
Where did I say that? Or is this the next installment of “call the Israel critic an anti-semite”
You seem to be reading all sorts of stuff into my poss that I don’t think can fairly be implied.
Where do I say that?
Israel is a Jewish state. It is THE Jewish state. Why is it any more surprising that the folks who supported that state over their state of residence be disproportionately Jewish than if the people who supported the Vatican over their state of residence be disproportionately Catholic?
How is it so clear to you when it is not at all clear to me? You seem to have a better idea of what I am thinking that I do, an amazing feat of mindreading.
AIPAC.
The way you say that makes it seem like I think the there is something about being Jewish that makes you mroe likely to have dual loyalty. You are starting to paint me as anti-semetic based on my position that there is a Pro-Israel lobby composed of US citizens taht put the interest of israel on par with if not ahead of the interests of the US.
Thats not what I believe. and i don’t agree with that.
I was repeating and agreeing with someone else’s earlier statement that the ADL *might *be accurately referred to as the Jewish Lobby.
You keep quoting me as saying “many” when I never used the word. The actual quote would be:
“I think there are some political figures (particularly neocons like Doug Feith) who I do suspect of having dual loyalties, as an aside, the suspects are not all Jewish.”
Once again, how is this so clear to you when it is not at all clear to me?
To the extent that you can’t see the difference between the words some and many, I don’t know what to say. I don’t particularly care about the dual loyalty of the senior citizens who play MahJong at the JCC, I don’t think Jewish Politicians are much more likely to be over-concerned with Israel’s interests than non-Jewish politicians but I do think that AIPAC exerts influence beyond their numbers tilts our political body towards policies that are pro-Israel even if other policies might be better for the US over the short and the long term.
I actually use the word “some” and this sort of veiled accusation of anti-semitism has been used pretty consistently since I’ve been on this board.
We could get into a huge tangent about this (and how its moderated) but its probably a different thread).
Here is what I said:
“I have no reason to believe that the typical Jewish politician has any more loyalty to Israel than Patrick Moynihan had to Ireland. But the lobbyists are a different matter and they exert influence. I think there are some political figures (particularly neocons like Doug Feith) who I do suspect of having dual loyalties, as an aside, the suspects are not all Jewish.”
I don’t see the word “many” anywhere. Lobbyists don’t just have dual loyalties, they are paid for them.
It depends. I think that accusing someone of dual loyalty purely based on their ethnicity is bigotry.
As a racial minority, I am sensitive to this sort of bigotry.
I think accusing someone of dual loyalty because they are paid to advance the interests of a foreign power or because they exhibit loyalty to a foreign power is not bigotry.
You keep using the word many whee I do not. Why is that?
The “Jewish Lobby” I was referring to was the ADL. No more nefarious than the NAACP, La Raza or AALDEF.
I think you have misprepresented what I have said.
I think you have misrepresented what I said.
So this is largely a matter of Hagel using the phrase Israel and jewish interchangably?
Yeah… About that… There have been some recent developments.
AIPAC differes from the NRA in two important respects.
People can publicly oppose guns without people implying that they are bigots so it is easier to organize opposition to this small interest group.
The NRA for all its faults represents a large domestic interests.
I can’t think of another lobbying group for a foreign power that exerts as much influence as AIPAC.
Even if one accepts your nonsensical claim that people can’t publicly oppose Israel without people “implying” that they are bigots: do you think it is useful in turn to imply that “some” or “most” American Jews are disloyal to their country (through the label “dual loyalty”, which has similar implications to arguing that American leftists had “dual loyalty” to the U.S. and Soviet Russia)?
Since there are many lobbies on behalf of other nations and foreign interests, can you explain why AIPAC’s effectiveness translates to evil in your view (as opposed to less effective lobbies on behalf of other Middle East nations and Palestinians)?
I wonder if AIPAC is as effective as its enemies give it credit for. Consider that the US has signed a formal document indicating that an attack on Turkey will be treated like an attack on the United States. Is this the result of the machinations of some mysterious Turkish lobby? I kinda doubt it.
The fact is that Israel is very popular in the United States so one could expect that the US would support Israel to a large extent even if AIPAC did not exist.
Never underestimate the significance of the pistachio nut importer’s cabal. :eek:
What I heard is that Turkey makes contributions to this lobbying group called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and it’s that organization that got the mutual defense pact going. They’ve been up to these shenanigans for 60 years and nothing’s been done about it!
Tell that to Chuck Hagel. You just use words like nonsensical to avoid having to face reality.
Where do I use the word most? Or did you just throw that in for flavor?
Where do I say disloyal? If you want to go around redefining terms like dual loyalty to meet your agenda then debate is going to be difficult.
See THIS is what I mean. Where do I say that AIPAC is evil?
AIPAC is no more evil that the NRA, the Oil lobby, the insurance lobby or any other lobby of narrow interests that exert disproportionate influence in DC.
Twisting words, putting words in my mouth and redefining words seem to the stock in trade of people who want to pretend that people who think that Israeli interests exert too much influence on America’s policies are actually bigots.
Still, it’s hard to imagine a candidate for SecDef getting much flak for saying he’ll put the interests of the US ahead of those of Turkey. Or even France.
Ah, ok, thanks.
Good point. I find it bizarre that he ever felt some need, at any time in his life, to make such a statement to the obvious, yet there it is…the big question…“Is the potential secretary of defense sufficiently pro-Israel?”. Of the questions raised, the only relevant one is his attitude toward LGBT service members.
Depends on how he says it.
‘Unlike Muslim-American politicians, I can be relied on to be 100% American in outlook and put American interests ahead of Muslim nations like Turkey’.
Flack … or no flack?
The real problem here seems to be that America is, by and large, pro-Israeli in its outlook and those who are not seem eternally puzzled as to why. The obvious explaination would be that Americans by and large feel that they are in the same “boat” as the Israelis, and thus are natural allies despite Israel’s legendary abrasiveness - why, that never seems to occur to them.
It is more as it were mentally comfortable to believe that the reason is a shadowy cabal of lobbyists - leaving aside that Washington is crawling with lobbysist of every conceivable type, including of course Arab lobbiests fueled with petrodollars. Even if one believes that the reason for America’s policies is lobbying, one still must explain why Israel’s lobby “works” while the Arab lobbies do not “work” - which merely returns the problem to square 1.
Careful - unless you can show that Damuri used that exact phrase, you’re “twisting his words” and “proving his point” - whatever that might happen to be.
:rolleyes:
Was this before AIPAC, Campus-Watch, Saban Center, ADL and many, many more or… after?
Simple review can show that nothing is further from the truth.
I don’t see where Malthus quotes me as saying things i didn’t actually say. You on the other hand dopn’t seem to realize that when you put quotation marks around something and attribute the quote to me, people will assume that I said thos things.
I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings to be called on this sort of thing. Perhaps it was in advertant and you just quoted me as saaying things you were sure I meant to say but this sort of error just seems too common when people attack critics of Israel.
If you do your “simple review” in the noticeably conspiracy-focused Fantasy Land from which you pull many of your claims, then yes. Otherwise, no, not so much. Even before 1948, the clear majority of Americans, at 65%, supported Partition. You are, of course, free to expound on your hypothesis of Zionist Thought Control, but were I you, I’d just admit I was wrong and bow out.
Either that or it really is reasonable for you to claim that people disagreeing with you is proof of enemy action.
But I wouldn’t put my money on that.
Have no idea what you mean by this. He was asked and responded about AIPAC in particular. He, at first fluffed the response, then corrected himself. But the bottom line his response should be the same one ANY member of Congress ought to make. In any nation and/or form of Gov. If elected, they are there to represent their nation’s interest’s first and foremost.
It’s like a “duh” objection with a lot of butthurt whine.
Look like he’ll get the job though – great on Obama that he is sticking by the man. One of the few things I think he’s done right. Going against the shills is of the essence if we are going to ever solve the IP situation.
I daresay, no I assert, that American MSM coverage of the IP conflict is not just grossly biased, but controlled from the Gov on down.
Read any/most main news sources from any other first world nation to see the difference. Obviously, they must all be self-hating Jews and/or anti-Semites.